Gentle, J.

1. The facts which are relevant to this Second Appeal are as follows: One Chikayi Ammal was the owner of a piece of immovable property. In 1919 she mortgaged it in favour of the deceased husband of the third defendant in the suit. Chikayi Ammal later sold this property, or the equity of redemption to one Chinnathayi, the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2. In 1920 Chinnathayi executed a second mortgage of the same property in favour of the plaintiff. It is convenient to refer to the third defendant as the 1st mortgagee, the plaintiff as the 2nd mortgagee and the first and second defendants as the mortgagor.

2. In 1926 the first mortgagee filed a mortgage suit upon the mortgage of 1919 and in that suit did not implead the second mortgagee as a party. In 1930 a mortgage decree was passed and in due course the mortgaged property was put up for sale by auction and was purchased at the sale by the first mortgagee, who, since that date has been in possession of the mortgaged property. There is no suggestion that the proceeds of the sale amounted to a sum which exceeded the amount due in respect of the first mortgage. In 1934 the present suit was filed; the plaintiff b